Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am wondering about the relative absence of "ethics" in Marxist philosophy, so I decided to check out Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History (which I'm sure Rosa has NOT read), as written by the founder of what is known today as "Marxism" (combining scientific socialism with German Social Democracy).

There is a bit of "dialectical" language in the work, but I was wondering if this was indeed the best book to start reading for a combination of Marxist philosophy and ethics.

[Hyacinth]

I’ve actually never encountered any work on ethics in the context of Marxism, apart from some attempts by analytic Marxists to make a theory of justice out of the maxim “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”.

Though, if you are interested in a historical materialist account of ethics I would suggest looking at works on descriptive ethics in anthropology, sociology, and psychology (in recent years there have been a number of interesting studies done on moral intuitions in psychology which demonstrate that many of our moral institutions have their root in the portion of the brain responsible for social cognition).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR, correct; I can't stand Kautsky -- and I am reasonably certain no one in the Marxist tradition has anything of worth to say about ethics.

Here is the link you seem to have ommitted from your post:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1906/ethics/index.htm

Trotsky's 'Their Morals And Ours' is one of the best, but even so, it's rather weak.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

"What I said, however, on this point was so often misunderstood by one side, and on the other brought me so many requests to give a more thorough and systematic exposition of my ideas on Ethics, that I felt constrained to attempt at least to give a short sketch of the development of Ethics on the basis of the materialist conception of history. I take as my starting point, consequently, that materialist philosophy which was founded on one side by Marx and Engels, on the other, though in the same spirit, by Joseph Dietzgen. For the results at which I have arrived I alone am responsible."

[Die Neue Zeit]

"That is no time which calls for the theoretical labors of revolutionary writers. But this drawback for our theoretical labors, which will probably be felt in the next few years, we need not lament. The materialist conception of history is not only important because it allows us to explain history better than has been done up to now, but also because it enables us to make history better than has been hitherto done. And the latter is more important than the former. From the progress of the practice our theoretical knowledge grows and in the progress of the practice our theoretical progress is proved. No world-conception has been in so high a degree a philosophy of deeds as the dialectical materialism. Not only upon research but upon deeds do we rely to show the superiority of our philosophy.

Even the book before us has not to serve for contemplative knowledge, but for the fight, a fight in which we have to develop the highest ethical strength as well as the greatest clearness of knowledge if we are to win."

:p ;) :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Aaaand...:confused:

[Die Neue Zeit]

And... you read it without an allergic reaction! :p

[Notwithstanding his later renegacy, what is your irrational, illogical beef with the founder of "Marxism," anyway?]

[rouchambeau]

Dude, what?

[gilhyle]

Kautsky's book is worth reading, although even more schematic than he usually was. Should also check out his Materialist Conception of History. See in particular Part 5, Section 3(6) Ascent to Morality. Rosa is also correct to refer to Their Morals and Ours.....which, I must say I did not find as weak as she finds it. There is a speech by Lenin from 1920 or 21.....I can dig out the reference if you want it. There is of course the relevant sections of the Anti Duhring ! Marx's remarks are scattered. Dietzgen does indeed make comments but not to any great additional effect - see Chapter V of The Nature of Human Brain Work.

There was a lively secondary literatute in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, which varies a lot in quality, but most of which has the character of assuming that there must be a conventional ethics somewhere hidden within Marx's writings and seeks to uncover. George Brenkert's book is of this type which at least includes many of the relevant references from that period - personally I find this type of writing risible but others may like it.

Adorno's writings on Ethics are challenging, but not really Marxist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil is largely correct in what he/she says, but his/her dislike for the material produced a generation or so ago is probably also based on that fact that such theorists were largely writing from within the Analytic tradiction in philosophy, and as such those authors did at least try to be clear and perspicuous in what they wrote -- which is, as I say, probably why Gil disparages it.

She/he prefers wall-to-wall gobbledygook, of the sort one finds in Hegel and 'systematic dialectics'.

[Dean]

I am wondering about the relative absence of "ethics" in Marxist philosophy, so I decided to check out Ethics and the Materialist Conception of History (which I'm sure Rosa has NOT read), as written by the founder of what is known today as "Marxism" (combining scientific socialism with German Social Democracy).

There is a bit of "dialectical" language in the work, but I was wondering if this was indeed the best book to start reading for a combination of Marxist philosophy and ethics.

Marx's Concept of Man (http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/index.htm) is good. I haven't heard of the book you mention, so I can't verify if this is better or worse, but it is at least very interesting.

[Hit The North]

She/he prefers wall-to-wall gobbledygook, of the sort one finds in Hegel and 'systematic dialectics'.

Ever thought about refraining from the petty bickering style you so fondly cling to? It'd do your own ethical reputation the world of good.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


Ever thought about refraining from the petty bickering style you so fondly cling to? It'd do your own ethical reputation the world of good.

I will when you give up the opiate you are addicted to: dialectical mysticism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1906/ethics/ch03.htm

"The great Revolution created the soil for the influence of Kant, which was strongest in the two decades after the Terror. Then this influence became paler and paler. The Bourgeoisie acquired after the thirties, even in Germany, strength and courage for more decided struggles against the existing forms of State and thought, and to an absolute recognition of the world of the senses as the only real one. Thus through the Hegelian dialectic there arose new forms of Materialism, and just in the most vigorous form in Germany, for the very reason that their Bourgeoisie was well behind that of France and England; because they had not conquered the existing state machine; because they had that still to upset, therefore they required a fighting philosophy and not one of reconciliation.

In the last decades, however, their desire to fight has greatly diminished. Even though they have not attained all that they wish, yet they have all which was necessary for their development. Further struggles on a large scale, energetic fights against the existing, must be of much less use to them than to their great enemy, the proletariat, that grew in a most menacing fashion and now for its part required a fighting philosophy. This was so much the more susceptible to the influence of materialism, the more the development of the world of the senses showed the absurdity of the existing order and the necessity of its victory.

The Bourgeoisie, on the other hand, became more and more susceptible to a philosophy of reconciliation, and thus Kantism was aroused to a fresh life. This resurrection was prepared in the reactionary period after 1848 by the then commencing influence of Schopenhauer.

But in the last decade the influence of Kant has found its way into Economics and Socialism. Since the laws of Bourgeois Society, which were discovered by the Classical Economists, showed themselves more clearly as laws which made the class war and the disappearance of the Capitalist order necessary, the Bourgeois Economists took refuge in the Kantian Moral Code, which being independent of Time and Space must be in a position to reconcile the class antagonisms and prevent the Revolutions which take place in Space and Time.

Side by side with the ethical school in Economics we got an ethical Socialism, when endeavors were made in our ranks to modify the class antagonisms, and to meet at least a section of the Bourgeoisie half way. This policy of Reconciliation also began with the cry: Back to Kant! And with a repudiation of materialism, since it denies the Freedom of the Will.

Despite the categoric imperative, which the Kantian Ethic cries to the individual, its historical and social tendency, from the very beginning on till today, has been that of toning down, of reconciling the antagonisms, not of overcoming them through struggle."

:p
;)
:D

[Hit The North]

CZ:
I will when you give up the opiate you are addicted to: dialectical mysticism.

I think the evidence is unclear about which one of us is substance-dependent on this philosophical tradition. I could give it up and hardly notice it. But how would you get by? Could you 'let it lie'?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


I think the evidence is unclear about which one of us is substance-dependent on this philosophical tradition. I could give it up and hardly notice it. But how would you get by? Could you 'let it lie'?

Eh?:confused: